<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with congress and GeorgeBush</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/congress+GeorgeBush</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'congress' and 'GeorgeBush' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:21:30 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:21:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>And Metafilter too! Especially!</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/30808/And%2DMetafilter%2Dtoo%2DEspecially</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.insightmag.com/news/2003/12/23/National/When-Does.Politics.Become.Treason-574556.shtml"&gt;When does politics become treason?&lt;/a&gt; Lincoln did it...almost. Why shouldn&apos;t GW Bush follow suit ? &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.jihadunspun.net/index-side_external.php?article=91521&amp;list=/home.php&amp;&quot;&gt;The Neocon Case for Imprisoning and Executing Congressional War Opponents.&lt;/a&gt;: &apos; &lt;i&gt;&quot;Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged&quot; - that&apos;s what President Abraham Lincoln said during the War Between the States.&lt;/i&gt; &apos;  Right then. Where&apos;s the noose? Step this way, my traitorous friends.  I&apos;ll flip ya&apos; for first in line.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.30808</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:21:30 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>americanpolitics</category>
		<category>bush</category>
		<category>congress</category>
		<category>georgebush</category>
		<category>neocons</category>
		<category>policestates</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<category>treason</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<dc:creator>troutfishing</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>John Dean case for War in Iraq</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/27066/John%2DDean%2Dcase%2Dfor%2DWar%2Din%2DIraq</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html"&gt;John Dean&apos;s analysis of the administrations case for War.&lt;/a&gt; &quot;What I found, in critically examining Bush&apos;s evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein&apos;s weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.27066</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:42:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>9-11</category>
		<category>cia</category>
		<category>congress</category>
		<category>georgebush</category>
		<category>government</category>
		<category>history</category>
		<category>iraq</category>
		<category>johndean</category>
		<category>saddamhussein</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<category>un</category>
		<category>unitednations</category>
		<category>unscom</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>wmd</category>
		<dc:creator>thedailygrowl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20341/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021014&amp;amp;s=editors"&gt;An Open Letter to Congress&lt;/a&gt; from the editors of The Nation.  All the makings of a final plea.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20341</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:47:41 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>bush</category>
		<category>congress</category>
		<category>editorials</category>
		<category>georgebush</category>
		<category>georgewbush</category>
		<category>invasions</category>
		<category>iraq</category>
		<category>iraqwar</category>
		<category>middleeast</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>opposition</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>resolutions</category>
		<category>thenation</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>waropposition</category>
		<dc:creator>mooseindian</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/19465/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61040-2002Aug25.html"&gt;Administration Says It Can Attack Iraq without Congressional Approval&lt;/a&gt; Not a new story, per se, but this Post article lays out pretty well the arguments behind the administration&apos;s case, one being simply Bush&apos;s role as commander-in-chief. It&apos;s strange how closely this issue reflects earlier attempts by the administration to avoid Congressional and/or public scrutiny (Cheney&apos;s Enron meetings, for example). Why this aversion, and why fight so hard? And I have a sneaking fear that Bush will seek Congressional approval only after invading, and he will bully votes by claiming that reps have a patriotic duty to support a president in a time of war.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.19465</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:16:18 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>Bush</category>
		<category>Congress</category>
		<category>GeorgeBush</category>
		<category>government</category>
		<category>GWB</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>iraqwar</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>WaPo</category>
		<category>WashingtonPost</category>
		<dc:creator>risenc</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


